Case 3312423/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Callum Crisp v CKO International Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3312423/2023
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett Date
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr Wharton, Mr Boustred
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Callum Crisp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Watford on 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 March 2025 before Judge Bartlett, Mr Wharton and Mr Boustred. The claimant was Mr Callum Crisp and the respondent was CKO International Ltd. The written judgment records that the claimant was represented by himself and the respondent by Ms Andrew.
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's disability discrimination claims. Those were direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The extracted judgment text records the outcomes only and does not set out further reasons for those findings.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Bartlett on 21 March 2025 and sent to the parties on 11 April 2025. The record also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.